Best Of

I am an attorney by training but I now own a consulting company the helps stakeholders in the built environment increase efficiency and productivity through continuous improvement processes. In my role as an attorney and as a consultant I advise clients on dispute resolution mechanisms of all kinds and I would be glad to work with the EOS community to establish effective alternative dispute resolution mechanisms. Mediation, arbitration and litigation all have advantages and disadvantages. The key is to put effective tools and processes in place BEFORE disputes arise. As a trained mediator and arbitrator 'd be glad to provide dispute resolution services to members of the EOS community - I've conducted mediation online through skype / gotomeeting and similar platforms - but again, and more importantly, I'd be interested in working with interested players to establish effective dispute resolution mechanisms that we embed in smart contracts at the outset.

After much thought on the issues we face in regards to the referendum contract and collaborating with many of the top minds working on this, I would like to bring forth a proposal for review that combines all of the best ideas presented so far.

Process for submitting a referendum proposal:

On-chain & Public Discussion - Until the EOS Forum is ready and all communications can be on-chain, anyone seeking to submit a referendum must first submit their full proposal for discussion here in the EOS Go forums, and provide a full copy of the text on-chain at eosproof.io. You must include the cryptographic hash in your actual post as well, so it is recommended you submit it to the chain BEFORE posting it here for discussion.

Public Support & Validity of Referendum - To combat frivolous referendums from clogging up the system, your proposal must meet a certain number of comments and approval from key community members and have a clear path to execution. Ideas are great, but vetted, principled arguments that meet real world standards of public consensus are still relevant, even here in the land of EOS. An exact number of comments and what metrics meet this standard are up for debate.

Process For Submitting Referendum - Once there is ample support for your referendum, you must submit your proposal officially to a Google form in the short term (or relevant EOS public forum once that is set up) to be reviewed by the EMLG group (or perhaps several governing bodies tasked with submitting your referendum to ensure the system is not flooded with spam). The person submitting the proposal will be asked for their cryptographic hash and proof of the data points I outlined, as well as relevant contact information and some level of verification that they are in fact a real person. If that should be decided to beI suggest we appoint at least three competing interest groups who are appointed to do this at different vantage points in the ecosystem to combat the potential for favoritism and censorship of unpopular ideas with incumbent power structures taking shape in the ecosystem now.

Referendum Cost & Support - A fee should be associated with proposing a referendum of 20-40 EOS. This serves two purposes: if you cannot collect that much in public support financially, your referendum may not be worth reviewing in the first place. The other part is the fees paid into the system could be put toward RAM staking to run the actual Referendum forum / eosvotes.io initiative. This both mitigates spam and provides funding to host the contract and referendums ongoing.

I believe this is a good start, please let me know your thoughts. We have many challenges ahead to make this work and we need the best and brightest from our community to make this a well thought out process end to end.

In the spirit of this process, I have registered this proposal on-chain here...

You've generated new keypair after mainnet launch - they are not in the genesis snapshot. That's what Scatter says - you have no Account linked to these keys. Accounts for keys included in snapshot was generated by eosio during genesis phase, you can see those transactions at the very beginning of EOS mainnet.

After fielding hundreds of questions and logging countless hours of discussions with individuals in the various Telegram groups, the Worker Proposal System working group has drafted a charter to govern its progress toward a solid Worker Proposal System.

WPS Goal Statement

Integral to the working group’s efforts is its goal statement:

“To design a proposal for the EOS Worker Proposal System (WPS) and its governance, including the formal procedures, controls, and data workflows that will control the election of proposals, the responsible distribution and oversight of funds to said proposals, and the process by which the WPS can be amended to meet the needs of the evolving chain. Also to design the referenda criteria for bringing the WPS into/out of existence. The proposed WPS will empower the funding of projects that will enhance the health and competitiveness of the EOS blockchain ecosystem, yet may or may not be otherwise commercially viable and therefore struggle to attract private investment.”

MVP - Minimum Viable Product

The WPS working group has defined a path forward for a rapidly deployed MVP1 (a first Minimum Viable Product) which will include a governance structure to enable early release of funds for high-priority infrastructure projects, as chosen by the Token Holders of the EOS Mainnet. Following the release of MVP1, the group, in cooperation with the community of stakeholders and volunteers, intends to engage in a more rigorous series of iterations to deploy a robust governance structure and flexible user interface, intended to support a wide range of Worker Proposals.

Orientation Sessions

To discuss some of the most important parts of the Charter, to clarify the path forward, and to empower community members to involve themselves with this project, Thomas Cox will be hosting two Orientation Sessions that will include an open Q&A. All members of the EOS community are invited to attend and registration is required (a recording of the better session will be posted):

Frequently Asked Questions

In addition, a set of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) have been posted to EOSGo here.
These FAQs are a first-stop for anyone interested in the status of the WPS working group’s proposal project and will be updated as progress is made, milestones achieved, and more questions become apparent.

Credits

The entire community can be grateful for the long hours of hard work put in by the volunteers, particularly lead volunteer Branden Espinoza.

The volunteers who drafted the Charter are:

Branden Espinoza (EOS Supporter)

David Margulies (EOS Supporter)

Domenic Thomas (Worbli)

Josh Kauffman (EOS Canada)

Mao Yi Feng (EOSReal)

Rick Schlesinger (EOS New York)

Robert DeWilder (Worbli)

Roman Skaskiew (CryptoLions)

Sam Sapoznick (EOS Supporter)

Todor Karaivanov (EOS Supporter)

In addition, the many contributors to the main WPS Telegram Channel did a great deal to bring the project this far.

Next Steps

Translation: As soon as the Charter has been translated into Korean and Chinese, I (Thomas) will update this posting to include links to those translations.

The official language of the working group remains English, and future applicants for volunteer positions in the core group must be fluent in English.

Volunteers must be Members of the EOS Mainnet community (either as current token holders or as claimants of accounts in the Unregistered ledger) and have agreed to its Constitution.

Korean Charter

Edit History

This post introduces key criteria that Arbitrators for the EOSIO Core Arbitrator Forum (ECAF) would be expected to meet. It also presents an overview of how Arbitrators, once selected, could be trained.

Criteria for selecting Arbitrators

The Governance Team have been brainstorming on what would make a good Arbitrator and consider the following to be possible criteria for selecting an Arbitrator:

Is known to the ECAF.

Education: We anticipate that the level of a 4-year university equivalent education is appropriate. A formal degree is not required, but the person is expected to have that level of thinking & writing, as judged by the current ECAF.

Language: Fluent in English, the default language of the ECAF. Proficiency in other languages is welcomed and useful.

Independence. An Arbitrator would be expected to meticulously expose her interests before ECAF and peers. As a guide, the following EOSIO-specific criteria would be seen as challenges to independence and may be seen as conflicts of interest:

Actively participates in the operation of any Block Producer;

Owns more than 5% passive stake in any Block Producer or DApp;

Owns or controls more than 0.1% of total EOS token supply;

Is a lawyer or barrister: has an active license to practice law in any jurisdiction. If licensed previously, suggest that a minimum of 1 year of inactive status shall have elapsed;

Evidence of aptitude and/or prior experience: Writing samples of at least 2 pages length demonstrating capacity to reason and explain in an objective, organized, discursive style. (For professional arbitrators: one or more more past rulings. For trainees: college essays or theses, good-quality journalism, well-structured and reasoned personal blog posts, etc.)

Commitment: Depending on prior experience, be prepared to commit to a minimum training period and a minimum weekly time commitment necessary to see a case through.

There may also be an assessment of a behavioral profile match to known good arbitrators. Below is a sample profile:

Steady (vs Urgent) Pacing

Midline on Assertiveness (between Unassuming and Forceful)

Reserved (vs Outgoing) Sociability

Strong-willed (vs Compliant) Conformity

Skeptical (vs Trusting) Outlook

Deliberate (vs Bold) Decisiveness

Steadfast (vs Agreeable) Accommodation

Autonomous (vs Reliant) Independence

Factual (vs Intuitive) Judgment

Training Arbitrators

Once selected, Arbitrators would be trained through an apprenticeship process in which they are mentored by a more experienced Arbitrator before being allowed to rule on a dispute in their own right. For example, the experienced Arbitrator would introduce the junior Arbitrator to the intricacies of the Arbitration process and take them through prior exemplar cases. The junior Arbitrator could also shadow the experienced Arbitrator as she reviews an ongoing dispute.

Edit: 4 June 18. Conflict crtieria updated based on Community feedback that DApps may not necessarily be designed to be revenue producing.

All the EOS tokens in one exchange got in the snapshot, remember all those tokens were in control of the exchange, they are just moving in between users within the exchange. Is like moving within their own book.